Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

I promised that I would critique the pain points of a game like Apocalypse World. I will start with a brief look at the motives in the Gamer Motivation Model I believe are necessary to enjoy Apocalypse World play, and the motives are believe are not well served by Apocalypse World. I'll include my own ratings for the interests of this discussion. I am speaking specifically of Apocalypse World play here. Other indie games are their own thing. This analysis does not even extrapolate to other Powered By The Apocalypse games.

[h=3]The Social Components (92%)[/h]Gamers with high Social scores enjoy interacting with other players, often regardless of whether they are collaborating or competing with them. Gamers with low Social scores prefer solo gaming experiences where they can be independent.

Competition (86%): Gamers who score high on this component enjoy competing with other players, often in duels, matches, or team-vs-team scenarios. Competitive gameplay can be found in titles like Starcraft, League of Legends, or the PvP Battlegrounds in World of Warcraft. But competition isn’t always overtly combative; competitive players may care about being acknowledged as the best healer in a guild, or having a high ranking/level on a Facebook farming game relative to their friends.

Community (91%): Gamers who score high on Community enjoy socializing and collaborating with other people while gaming. They like chatting and grouping up with other players. This might be playing Portal 2 with a friend, playing Mario Kart at a party, or being part of a large guild/clan in an online game. They enjoy being part of a team working towards a common goal. For them, games are an integral part of maintaining their social network.


[h=3]The Mastery Components (94%)[/h]
Gamers with high Mastery scores like challenging gaming experiences with strategic depth and complexity. Gamers with low Mastery scores enjoy being spontaneous in games and prefer games that are accessible and forgiving when mistakes are made.

Challenge (88%): Gamers who score high on Challenge enjoy playing games that rely heavily on skill and ability. They are persistent and take the time to practice and hone their gameplay so they can take on the most difficult missions and bosses that the game can offer. These gamers play at the highest difficulty settings and don’t mind failing missions repeatedly in games like Dark Souls because they know it’s the only way they’ll master the game. They want gameplay that constantly challenges them.

Strategy (93%): Gamers who score high on this component enjoy games that require careful decision-making and planning. They like to think through their options and likely outcomes. These may be decisions related to balancing resources and competing goals, managing foreign diplomacy, or finding optimal long-term strategies. They tend to enjoy both the tactical combat in games like XCOM or Fire Emblem, as well as seeing their carefully-devised plans come to fruition in games like Civilization, Cities: Skylines, or Europa Universalis.

[h=3]The Immersion Components (90%)[/h]Gamers with high Immersion scores want games with interesting narratives, characters, and settings so they can be deeply immersed in the alternate worlds created by games. Gamers with low Immersion scores are more grounded in the gameplay mechanics and care less about the narrative experiences that games offer.

Fantasy (85%): Gamers who score high on Fantasy want their gaming experiences to allow them to become someone else, somewhere else. They enjoy the sense of being immersed in an alter ego in a believable alternate world, and enjoy exploring a game world just for the sake of exploring it. These gamers enjoy games like Skyrim, Fallout, and Mass Effect for their fully imagined alternate settings.

Story (88%): Gamers who score high on Story want games with elaborate campaign storylines and a cast of multidimensional characters with interesting backstories and personalities. They take the time to delve into the backstories of characters in games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and enjoy the elaborate and thoughtful narratives in games like The Last of Us and BioShock. Gamers who score low on Story tend to find dialogue and quest descriptions to be distracting and skip through them if possible.

[h=3]The Achievement Components (29%)[/h]Gamers with high Achievement scores are driven to accrue power, rare items, and collectibles, even if this means grinding for a while. Gamers with low Achievement scores have a relaxed attitude towards in-game achievements and don’t worry too much about their scores or progress in the game.

Power (52%): Gamers who score high on this component strive for power in the context of the game world. They want to become as powerful as possible, seeking out the tools and equipment needed to make this happen. In RPGs and action games, this may mean maxing stats or acquiring the most powerful weapons or artifacts. Power and Completion often go hand in hand, but some players enjoy collecting cosmetic items without caring about power, and some players prefer attaining power through strategic optimization rather than grinding.

Completion (13%): Gamers with high Completion scores want to finish everything the game has to offer. They try to complete every mission, find every collectible, and discover every hidden location. For some players, this may mean completing every listed achievement or unlocking every possible character/move in a game. For gamers who score high on Design, this may mean collecting costumes and mounts in games like World of Warcraft.


[h=3]The Creativity Components (39%)[/h]Gamers with high Creativity scores are constantly experimenting with their game worlds and tailoring them with their own designs and customizations. Gamers with low Creativity scores are more practical in their gaming style and accept their game worlds as they are.

Discovery (25%): Gamers who score high on Discovery are constantly asking “What if?” For them, game worlds are fascinating contraptions to open up and tinker with. In an MMO, they might swim out to the edge of the ocean to see what happens. In MineCraft, they might experiment with whether crafting outcomes differ by the time of day or proximity to zombies. They “play” games in the broadest sense of the word, often in ways not intended or imagined by the game’s developers.

Design (54%): Gamers who score high on this component want to actively express their individuality in the game worlds they find themselves in. In games like Mass Effect, they put a lot of time and effort in the character creation process. In city-building games or space strategy games, they take the time to design and customize exactly how their city or spaceships look. To this end, they prefer games that provide the tools and assets necessary to make this possible and easy to do.

[h=3]The Action Components (67%)[/h]Gamers with high Action scores are aggressive and like to jump in the fray and be surrounded by dramatic visuals and effects. Gamers with low Action scores prefer slower-paced games with calmer settings.

Destruction (47%): Gamers who score high on this component are agents of chaos and destruction. They love having many tools at their disposal to blow things up and cause relentless mayhem. They enjoy games with lots of guns and explosives. They gravitate towards titles like Call of Duty and Battlefield. And if they accidentally find themselves in games like The Sims, they are the ones who figure out innovative ways to get their Sims killed.

Excitement (82%): Gamers who score high on this component enjoy games that are fast-paced, intense, and provide a constant adrenaline rush. They want to be surprised. They want gameplay that is full of action and thrills, and rewards them for rapid reaction times. While this style of gameplay can be found in first-person shooters like Halo, it can also be found in games like Street Fighter and Injustice, as well as energetic platformers like BIT.TRIP RUNNER.

I'll have more analysis of what this means in another post.

 

[tomBitonti]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: While not disagreeing overall, the definitions don't seem to have a place for systems which allow players to introduce major scene elements. Though, I'm not sure everyone puts shared story telling type systems firmly as RPGs. There is certainly role playing. But there is (or seems to me) a notable loss of game elements.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Upthread, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and some other posters (maybe [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION]?) expresed doubt that running a game in the way I described - ie building up the backstory in response by following the players' leads, by narrating consequences of checks, by framing the PCs (and thereby the players) into conflict - could produce a coherent, rich world. I disagreed (as did some other posters, I think, eg [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]).

I will clarify that it wasn't doubt that you specifically could or could not, and you also clarified a bit what you mean by shared-authoring.

My doubt is based on what I understand about BW/DW and the games I've seen played, including the "how to play" games on YouTube and such, that if a group of people sit down to start playing a game, and one guy says he wants to be a dwarven cleric, and the GM then tells them, "OK, you're a dwarf, so tell us more about the dwarven lands and culture. And also, you're a cleric, so you own the Gods, or at least part of the Gods, and particularly your God. Tell us about the Gods and clerics."

Then, the focus of the game is specifically on only the parts of the world that come into play and impact the PCs at that point in time. So after a few years of playing like this, in an extended campaign, potentially with players coming and going - sure, I'm skeptical that will present a world as richly detailed or as coherent as the Forgotten Realms. Sure, there are plenty of contradictions or issues with the Realms as well, particularly as the content police have waxed and waned over time. Anytime you have a shared world, you need some sort of quality and content control to help maintain it. That's one of my roles in my campaign world.

Having said that - I also acknowledge that a consistent world of that sort of breadth and depth isn't likely a goal of their games either. It's something I enjoy, not everybody does. I certainly can't argue with the idea that developing a region such as Calimshan as fully as it has been in print, when your characters will never visit the land seems like a bit of a waste of time. On the other hand, world-building is a hobby in itself. Not to mention that the cultures, people, and products of a far-away land can have an impact on the local world too. Such as the impact trade with the orient had in medieval Europe. World-building acknowledges that these sorts of things are interconnected and have an impact on the history of the local world too, and can help explain why things are the way they are here and now.

 

[pemerton]

The example above is from Night's Dark Terror, and that thing is nothing but a whole string of mysteries and secret backstories the PCs have to wade through and figure out!

Not as I ran it. See my post not too far upthread.

EDIT: Just to repeat one point from that earlier post: the module as written doesn't have use the skulking yellow-robed wizard as an element of colour in an encounter with a goblin-corpse burying NPC.

That's an example of the difference between running something as a puzzle, and using story elements as colour and/or framing for the situations that challenge the PCs.

 

[pemerton]

Combat encounters don't have fixed outcomes, but skill challenges do. A combat encounter can end with one side defeated, one side injured, one side running away, one side surrendering, one side being captured against their will -- pick multiples. Combat encounters have fixed entry points (usually), but not fixed exit points. Skill challenges, on the other hand, usually have both fixed entry and exit points -- the exit points are success at the challenge or failure at the challenge.

This does not reflect my experience at all.

A skill challenge, as I understand it, is a method for resolving a non-combat situation of adversity in which the PCs find themselves. (Some people use skill challenges for some combats also - but I'm bracketing that for the moment.)

So to frame a skill challenge, we need (i) some PCs, who (ii) find themselves in a non-combat situation of adversity. We then apply the method, which (i) requires setting a complexity, and (ii) requires settling at least some general parameters for DCs (though, as the discussion in this thread has shown, different practices are used at this point by different GMs).

Then, as per the 4e DMG (p 74), the GM "describe the environment, listen to the players' responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results." As written, it is ambiguous whether the plural here takes a distributed or collective reading; and I think this was a big issue in the reception and play of skill challenges, as I think many RPGers and also, perhaps, some adventure authors assumed that the plural was collective - ie the GM listens once to the many player responses, let's the players all make their checks, and then (once, after this is all done) narrates the results. This makes the resolution of a skill challenge nothing but a "dice rolling exercise".

The DMG 2 (p 83), however, clarified that the plural is intended to take a distributed reading, ie that there are as many episodes of the GM describing the environment, listening to responses and then narrating results as there are makings of checks:

Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals:

* Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue . . .

* Change the situation, such as by sending the PCs to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication.

* Grant the players a tangible consequence . . . that influence their subsequent decisions.​

. . . [T]he same situation applies in a battle. . . . During a combat encounter, the actions taken by each character and monster set the stage for the next person's turn. In a good combat encounter, the situation constantly changes. The same thing applies to skill challenges. The best challenges are those that you can adjust as you react to the players' decisions.​

Doing this - that is to say, applying the method so as to resolve the non-combat situation of adversity in which the PCs find themselves - doesn't depend upon there being some sort of fixed exit point. I would go so far as to say that it is impossible that there should be a fixed exit point, as one can't know in advance what actions the players will declare, and hence can't know in advance what things will change as a result of those actions, and hence can't know what the situation will be for subsequent checks, and hence can't know what the outcome resulting from the final check will be.

 

[pemerton]

I do think it's very important to pull the characters into the campaign world and the adventure. Which is exactly what I mean when I say the players/characters write the story.

Speaking for myself, I would go further: I want the GM to be pulled by the players into the world of their PCs.

To give an example drawing on the game mentioned in the OP: I did not try and draw the player of the mage PC into a campaign world of sorcerous cabals and mage's towers and decapitated brothers.

Rather, that player created a PC who was a member of a sorcerous cabal, and who had an instinct to always cast Falconskin if falling. And who had a brother possessed by a balrog. And in the first session he tried to make friendly contact with the leader of the cabal, and failed; when the leader of the cabal needed a house I made it a tower because towers are high place from which someone might fall, and hence have to cast Falconskin! Another player created a PC who wanted to kill her former (sorcerous) masters, and events of play confirmed that the master fated to be decapitated, and the demon-possessed brother, were one and the same.

That's just a summary of some aspects of PC creation, plus a few events of play, but I hope it conveys what I mean when I say that the players drew me, as GM, into the world of their characters.

EDIT: I read a later post of yours:

I don't frame based on dramatic needs. The drama occurs in the course of the story the players write in the world I present. I see myself as an impartial referee in that regard.

<snip>

when I frame scenes, it's not really for dramatic effect.

<snip>

I also provide story arcs for the NPCs, monsters, and such, and the players intersect with those - but until the PCs do something, until they latch onto something and run with it, there really isn't any drama.

<snip>

I do provide plot hooks, including as many as I can that connect to backstories and such. But they are still just things.

<sniP.

I also don't consider it my job to "introduce complications."

I can see how this is "pulling the characters into the campaign world and the adventure", but I personally would probably not describe it as "the players writing the story".

 

[Campbell]

I will clarify that it wasn't doubt that you specifically could or could not, and you also clarified a bit what you mean by shared-authoring.

My doubt is based on what I understand about BW/DW and the games I've seen played, including the "how to play" games on YouTube and such, that if a group of people sit down to start playing a game, and one guy says he wants to be a dwarven cleric, and the GM then tells them, "OK, you're a dwarf, so tell us more about the dwarven lands and culture. And also, you're a cleric, so you own the Gods, or at least part of the Gods, and particularly your God. Tell us about the Gods and clerics."

Then, the focus of the game is specifically on only the parts of the world that come into play and impact the PCs at that point in time. So after a few years of playing like this, in an extended campaign, potentially with players coming and going - sure, I'm skeptical that will present a world as richly detailed or as coherent as the Forgotten Realms. Sure, there are plenty of contradictions or issues with the Realms as well, particularly as the content police have waxed and waned over time. Anytime you have a shared world, you need some sort of quality and content control to help maintain it. That's one of my roles in my campaign world.

Having said that - I also acknowledge that a consistent world of that sort of breadth and depth isn't likely a goal of their games either. It's something I enjoy, not everybody does. I certainly can't argue with the idea that developing a region such as Calimshan as fully as it has been in print, when your characters will never visit the land seems like a bit of a waste of time. On the other hand, world-building is a hobby in itself. Not to mention that the cultures, people, and products of a far-away land can have an impact on the local world too. Such as the impact trade with the orient had in medieval Europe. World-building acknowledges that these sorts of things are interconnected and have an impact on the history of the local world too, and can help explain why things are the way they are here and now.

My own experience is that over time the characters, the lives they live, and parts of the setting they touch upon can become fairly detailed and complex if the interest is there. However, the setting beyond the characters own experiences does not really get touched on much. I tend to keep these very elaborate relationship maps that are fairly rich in detail. Actual detailed maps are not so much a feature of play. These systems are not very good for kick the tires play where the greater world is what is of interest. We are far more interested in making the characters feel real.

I would note that in games like Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, and Masks because so much time is spent in essentially one place the surrounding environment and specific places like a particular bookstore, coffee shop, bar, or library often become like characters in their own right with interests, relationships, features, and rich details. It begins to feel lived in through extended play. We really get to know them on an intimate level. Where can I find Dravos? He's probably drinking with Feron at the Tattered Rose. They're there every Friday night. Where's Rose, that cute young waitress who started here last week? Oh her. She got in roe with her boyfriend and called off today.

Another note: Part of what we depend on the other players for is to act as editors when we declare something about the fiction. This is where a collaborative approach can actually lead to better consistency than we might see otherwise. Because we do not wholly own any given thing it is perfectly acceptable for another player to say stuff like "Wait. I thought you said your character's brother was off at war while that was going on. That could not have happened." The same sort of thing can happen when GMs say stuff about the world. Normally we don't question stuff the GM says about the world because of social contract stuff, but under this model it is entirely permissible.

 

[pemerton]

[The GM's] job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications. . . .

[O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . . The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.

Which seems to me to be a) all about the character's introspection (earlier I called this emo-gaming) and personal story rather than anything on a grander scale, and b) very closed-ended; sure the character may have resolved her own internal issues but there's still a great big world out there to go adventuring in, so why stop now?

I don't understand your (a).

In my main 4e game, the paladin of the Raven Queen had, as his two preeminent goals, (i) to stop Torog using his Soul Abattoir to trap the souls of those who die in the Underdark and use them as a source of mystical power, and (ii) to destroy Orcus. A third motivation for the character, not so much a goal as an ethos, is the value of ordinary lives, of those whose time has not yet come to die.

Hence, framing scenes according to dramatic need meant putting (i) or (ii) into play, or allowing the third motivation to express itself (eg by the sparing of lives where they might be spared). That is not about introspection or "emo-gaming". That is about the PC defeating undead, hunting down Orcus cultists, using the magical tapestry to create the map to the Soul Abattoir, destroying it with the help of his fellows, and then launching an assault on Orcus's castle in Thanatos.

Hence why I don't understand your (a).

To some extent your (b) seems to take your (a) as a premise. But treating it as an independent thing: In the course of escaping from the Abyss, this PC developed a new motivation, when he (and the rest of the PCs) learned that the Raven Queen's (mortal) mausoleum had (like all lost and/or ruined things) made its way to The Barrens, the 100th layer of the Abyss; an so with his fellows he went off to prevent anyone using her mausoleum to learn her true name and hence gain power over her.

The story of this PC will "naturally reach its end" when either (i) the Raven Queen is toppled, (ii) the Raven Queen becomes supreme ruler of the cosmos, or (iii) the Raven Queen is somehow accommodated within, and reconciled to, a new cosmological settlement. The player of this PC is angling for (ii). The player of the dwarf inclines rather strongly to (i). Two of the other PCs incline towards (iii). The invoker/wizard does not seem to have an overt commitment, but his actions in restoring the Rod of Seven Parts - at the behest, ultimately, of the Raven Queen - seem most likely to facilitate (ii).

As the previous paragraph at least hints at, the stories of these PCs are intertwined. That's not a coincidence - it's part of my job as GM to try and bring that about and sustain it over the course of play.

EDIT: Since posting this I see that I was ninja-ed by [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]!

 

[pemerton]

As I see it stake setting, skill challenges etc among other things allow a question to be asked and answered in a relatively short time. The referee and players have to agree what the question is and roughly what the stakes are and based on what transpires the players succeed or fail after the set number of successes or failures connected to the fiction, or whatever other methods are being used. The answer, win or lose, needs to be relatively final, no takebacks or retrys from any involved parties.

I enjoyed the post! The only thing where I differ a bit (and maybe not even that, give your use of roughly) is that I think the stakes - ie what the players are aiming to achieve for their PCs, and what they are prepared to risk to get there - can themselves evolve over the course of a skill challenge, as part of the process of the GM framing checks, and then narrating results, and using those results to feed into the framing of subsequent checks.

This is also true in Cortex+/MHRP - eg an initial condition inflicted on an opponent might be emotional stress, but the conflict might end with the opponent "stressed" out by some sort of complication (eg Treachery Revealed stepped up to d12+). I see this sort of thing happen in my games quite a bit.

But in a BW Duel of Wits, the stakes do have to be set ahead of time - the main change that results from actual resolution of the situation is the terms of compromises. But because, in practice, most DoW require compromises of some sort, this stuff that is established in the course of the resolution still often ends up mattering quite a bit to how things turn out.

 

[pemerton]

how does one of the players have a giant shaman as a PC resource??

From the MHRP "Operations Manual" (ie the Basic Rulebook) (pp 12, 21, 97):

If a 1 comes up on any of the Watcher’s dice, [a player] can spend 1 P[lot] P[oint] to activate the opportunity. . . . You may use this . . . to create a resource during an Action Scene. . . .

A resource is a special kind of stunt linked to one of your Specialties and created by spending a PP during a Transition Scene, much as you would create a stunt die for a Specialty in an Action Scene. . . .

Resources represent people you may know through your circle of contacts, information provided by your connections, or locations you can make use of as a result of your background in the Specialty. . . .

If you activate an opportunity with a PP, you can create a resource during an Action Scene that lasts until the end of the Scene you created it in. Otherwise, resources must already exist for you to add them into a die pool during an Action Scene. . . .

You may also spend a Plot Point during a Transition Scene to invoke some kind of beneficial contact or helpful association with a Watcher character [= NPC] - including dirty secrets about their past or some observation about their fighting style - by spending a Plot Point to create a resource die. . . . You can also introduce a resource during an Action Scene if you activate an opportunity from the Watcher . . .​

The PC in question has the Social speciality which, in our fantasy hack, sits in the same general space as 4e Diplomacy and Insight, or MHRP Psych. (The Hacker's Guide, p 205, describes a similar Diplomacy specialty as "You have a gift for understanding sentient behavior and finding common ground with other people and cultures.")

The PCs were "negotiating" with the giant chieftain. The swordthane, having offered up his horse (an earlier-established resource, from the Riding speciality) as a gift, was trying to persuade the chieftain that the giants had the same interest in the PCs' quest as did the PCs and their people, because everyone had an interest in the land not being cursed/barren/blighted etc. The player asked whether there was a giant shaman or similar sort of figure who might back him up. I said that this would be the sort of thing one might establish as a Social resource if I rolled a 1 and the PP was then spent to activate the opportunity. When I rolled my next 1, the player duly spent his PP. Thereafter, his dice pools to persuade the chieftain included an extra d6 Shaman resource. (I did the actual talking for the shaman, expressing agreement with the argument the player (speaking as his PC) was putting to the chieftain.)

EDIT: In order to avoid being queried on my knowledge and application of these rules, I probably should also quote this, from OM p 54:

A lot of things in the story don’t have dice associated with them because they’re a part of the fiction that everyone at the table just agrees on. Lampposts, sidewalks, plate windows, random passersby, bouquets of flowers, newspapers, and other items that aren’t immediately important are just context and color. You can make them important by using your effect dice to make them assets, or use them as part of your description for stunts . . .​

The presence of a shaman in the hall of the giant chieftain is something that counts as "a part of the fiction that everyone at the table just agrees on". The player made it important by turning it into a resource, which is "a special kind of stunt".

could the giant chieftain (if his independent motivations and goals coincide) choose to sell the PC's out to one of their enemies for profit once they are on their journey? If they return through the giant chieftain's land could he decide then to eat them or take whatever it is they have quested for, again if his motivations and goals (as well as the general nature of giants) makes this feasible or does this one SC in effect make the giant chieftain their ally into perpetuity?

<snip>

is it only the players and their characters that can cause a mitigation or reversal of a resolution that has been decided? If not under what circumstances (since in-game rationale's are not acceptable) can NPC's do such?

<snip>

When you state... "unless something happens at the table, in the game, to reopen the matter"... actually isn't all that simple and the parameters of it (even though I've asked in multiple replies) around mitigation vs. reversal and who can institute said "something" have remained murky and nebulous

PCs vs NPCs has nothing to do with it! "Let it Ride", no retries, finality, and similar principles aren't properties of the gameworld. They're rules for roleplaying, and so they operate upon the participants in the game, namely, the GM and the players.

Page 32 of BW Gold (which can be downloaded as a free preview from DriveThruRPG) describes "Let it Ride" thus:

A player shall test once against an obstacle and shall not roll again until conditions legitimately and drastically change. Neither GM nor player can call for a retest unless those conditions change. Successes from the initial roll count for all applicable situations in play.​

What counts as a "legitimate and drastic change" is not a question that can be answered in the abstract. It's obviously a matter of judgement. And until the game has actually been played, it can't be known what has been put back into play by the players, or by the unfolding situation, and what has been settled.

The judgement will ultimately be the GM's, but it's not unilateral. I've been called on Let it Ride in BW play plenty of times - that's part and parcel of the system, and a player reminding me that something has been settled, and that nothing has drastically changed since then, is not doing anything remotely out of order.

(The same answer applies to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s question "What about the passage of two weeks in game?" It depends utterly on what actually occurred in the play of the game with respect to the passage of those two weeks. In the abstract there's no saying whether the passage of two weeks is utterly trivial, or game-changingly fundamental.)

can you as the DM use the advisor to advocate or champion for a particular cause that is independent of reacting to what the PC's do... or are they simply antagonists... their only purpose, as others have stated, being to align with or oppose what the PC's do?

Haven't I already answered this? Years before the PCs and advisor had crossed paths, the advisor was building up a goblin army to try and recover the magical tapestry that would show him the way to Torog's Soul Abattoir. The advisor's motivation for doing this had nothing to do with the PCs. He was trying to help Vecna gain control of the Underdark souls.

To further clarify let's take 4e as a system... I feel it really doesn't work well for the type of play where the NPC's express protagonism, Why? Because as you commented on before the DM is not given the latitude to use the same tools as the players are.

For the advisor to raise a goblin army, or to weasel his way into the service of the baron, or to woo the baron's neice and convert her to evil Vecna worship, doesn't require any mechanical resolution at all. I just write this stuff into the backstory of the campaign!